534,563.Between January 31 11 for sales into New Mexico, 1998 and July 31, 2005 (the audit period). The sole issue on charm is if the hearing officer correctly concluded that Taxpayer didn’t have a substantial nexus with New Mexico, as required under the Business Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Because we conclude that the in-state use of the Barnes & Noble trademarks was sufficient to meet up with the constitutional standard, we reverse. After Taxpayer submitted a timely protest, both parties shifted for summary view.
The facts weren’t disputed, and the parties decided that the GRT statute applied to Taxpayer’s activities. However, Taxpayer argued that application of the statute was unconstitutional because there was no considerable nexus between Taxpayer and New Mexico. Department argued that the GRT statute applied to Taxpayer’s sales and that the existence of Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. (Booksellers) stores in New Mexico created an adequate nexus allowing the tax. During the audit period, Taxpayer was at all times a wholly possessed subsidiary of barnes&noble.com, inc. The possession of barnes&commendable.com Inc. varied through the period; however, at least 40% was owned by B&N.com Holding Corp.
B&N.com Holding Corp. was at all relevant times an owned subsidiary of Barnes & Noble wholly, Inc. (Parent). It comes after that during the audit period, Parent had an interest of between 40% and 100% in Taxpayer. Parent owned other companies relevant to our discussion as well. Most importantly, it owned Booksellers.
Booksellers works physical Barnes & Noble reserve stores throughout … Read more